[Todd Terry]

Sounds like we are in the same boat with Nick…

We do archive everything forever, and yes, we charge for it. It’s not a huge fee, but it is enough to cover the cost of the drives we use for archival.

As for a fee for “un-archiving” stuff… well, yes, I guess we do, although we don’t specifically call it that or bill for it that way. But the amount of time it takes to move files back from an archive drive to a RAID in one of the video suites is just part of the editing process and is simply billed as edit time with the rest of the project.

As for “re-licensing,” are you talking about some limited-time rights to some elements (say a photograph, graphic, or piece of music that you licensed for the particular project for a set and limited piece of time that has now run out)? If that’s the case, and you have to buy something again, then yes… obviously you will bill for it. But… if you are talking about licensing your design to the client and charging them again for it… then noooo, obviously not, never. They’ve already paid for it and the rights to use it.

The only exception I’d consider in that case is if your contract with them had already specified a specific usage time, say 13 weeks or whatever, and then they are now coming to you a year later and wanting it again. In that case, re-licensing would be appropriate, but not in any other circumstance that I can think of.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

Ehh… I think you’re thinking of things in a little bit of a wacky way, or at least a way that I’ve never quite heard anyone put it.

A couple of things…

[enrique bartolo] “is there any changes in quality that makes a difference because of one sensor being bigger for the lens and vice versa?”

Don’t think of the one-bigger-than-the-other thing in reference to the lens/sensor, that is irrelevant. But, when using a 16mm sensor vs. a 35mm sensor, keep in mind that the 16mm sensor is only using the very center of the lens, where the “sweet spot” is, so it’s possible the same lens might look sharper on the 16mm camera (although of course the field of view is radically different).

[enrique bartolo] “And lets also assume the crop factor on both cameras is by 3, therefore 35mm will be a fixed focal length of 105mm on BOTH cameras.”

Not quite following you there. I’m not sure why you are saying the 35mm lens will be a 105mm. A 35mm lens (or whatever focal length) is a 35mm lens no matter what size sensor you are using… that doesn’t change the focal length. BUT, because a smaller sensor only uses a smaller portion of the image, the field of view (as said above) will be radically different depending on the sensor size. For example, that 35mm lens will be medium-widish on a S35mm sensor camera… but the same 35mm lens will be quite a telephoto if mounted on a camera with a small 1/3″ sensor. Sometimes people will say something like it’s the “equivalent of a 50mm lens” or whatever, but that’s really a very consumerish way of expressing that and not a legit cinematographic way of looking at it. Focal lengths are what they are, they don’t change.

[enrique bartolo] “lets say I have a Micro Four Thirds prime lens with a focal length of 35mm…Now lets also assume the lens mounts into the Pocket Camera and the a7 (with an adapter) just fine.”

You can’t assume that though, and it likely won’t. Well, it might mount, but it might not cover… two very different things. Lets take the example of a two film cameras, a 16mm and a 35mm, both with PL mount. One might think that all PL mount lenses would work with both cameras, but they wont (although they would all mount). All lenses designed for 35mm cameras would work on either, but lenses designed for 16mm cameras would only work on the 16mm… because they do not project a big enough “circle” of the image to completely cover the 35mm frame. The same thing will happen on a lens designed for a MFT camera. Assuming it mounts, it will definitely work on the Pocket Camera with it’s small sensor. But a full-frame or 35mm sensor is bigger than a MFT sensor, so the MFT lens might not cover the 35mm frame. You’d likely get clipped corners or vignetting when using it with a sensor larger than MFT size.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

I think that clip exactly proves my point, that zoom in Jeremiah Johnson just screams “1972!!”… which was exactly when that movie was made. So many early 70s movies are chock full of zooms… you can’t swing a dead cat without seeing a building exterior that zooms into a window before cutting to an interior… or starting a scene with a closeup of a character’s face that zooms out to reveal the rest of the scene.

If Jeremiah Johnson was shot today, no doubt that would be a dolly shot, not a zoom.

I thought “dated zooms” were used beautifully by Betty Thomas when she directed “The Brady Bunch Movie.” Just that one camera move immediately (and properly) dated it, instantly giving it the look of the original 1969-1974 series.

As for Blaise’s other examples, yep, they work there, mostly handheld as previously noted.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

What this type of scammer almost invariably does is “accidently” overpay and ask you to send them a check (or wire them the money) for the difference… or pays in full and then cancels a job and asks for a refund. Their original check, of course, is rubber.

I wouldn’t worry about them finding out where your gear is stored or anything like that (isn’t that going to be readily available info anyway?). In all likelihood these people are halfway around the globe, the chances of a drop-in are pretty slim.

As is any chance of catching them.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

I would say that you definitely deserve a credit. Whether it be “Associate Editor” or “Additional editing by…” is up to whatever you can hammer out with the producer. Obviously the credit shouldn’t hint that your role was “corrective” in any nature, that’d just be bad form. Keep in mind that there may be a contractual obligation that requires the original editor to be solely credited. If so, then so be it… that happens all the time on movies (especially with screenwriters). Often there’s a whole boatload of writers and re-writers and script doctors that don’t get any mention at all, because there’s a contractual obligation to list the original screenwriter as such. Just comes with the territory.

As for money… I’d say it is irrelevant that the film has a $3M budget, or knowing what the original editor was paid. That’s not going to affect the quality of your editing or the amount of work involved (or at least it shouldn’t). Just charge whatever your usual hourly editing rate is.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

I should have added, that it sounds like your company is needing something but doesn’t have the hardware/software needed to do it (or the personnel that knows how, by your own admission).

If you want to outsource that, feel free to contact me off the board at todd(at)fantasticplastic.com

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

I can give you and answer about the Canon XF utility that will definitely save you some time… but you probably won’t like the answer.

In short, you can stop searching for buttons in the XF Utility, because you are not going to find them. The Utility is awesome for looking at (properly formatted and shot) camera cards, making backups, and merging .MXF clips. But it will not convert one type of files into another… it’s not going to change or convert your .MXF files into anything else, they are going to stay .MXF files.

To change your .MXF files into the .mp4 files that you need, you will need some other editing platform or conversion utility.

Here at our place, our editing suites all run Adobe Premiere CS6. So the way we’d do that, we’d simply throw the .MXF files on a Premiere timeline and then output the .mp4 files at whatever exact specs we need.

If you don’t want (or have access to) a full-blown editing system, there might be some little stand-alone programs that will convert .MXF files into another format.

If so, I can’t say what they are as we have never had any need for anything like that.

I’d suggest hitting the Googlin’ machine and see what you can find. But you can close out the XF Utility, it’s not going to help you.

Good luck….

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

Interesting that people suddenly started adding to an almost six-year old thread….

[grinner hester] “I offer no monetary incentives for paying on time but do add late charges.”

All well and good, and while we haven’t ever added late charges before, we have considered it.

BUT… be aware that you can’t just do that at will. I think in most states in the US (if not every state), you may only impose a late fee or a finance charge if your original contract spells out that you do that, and what the details are. And then you are still bound by your state’s laws as to the maximum allowable.

I got an invoice in from some voice talent last week, an actor we had never worked with before. I noticed at the bottom of his net/30 invoice that delinquent payments would be subject to an 8% monthly late fee.

Well, not that it matters to us (because we immediately paid him, as we do all talent), but he can’t do that. There was never any discussion of late fees when we hired him, so he is not legally able to do that after the fact. Nor can he impose an 8% monthly late fee. That adds up to almost 100% annually, which is not legal in our state. Here, the max is 25% annually, or just a tad over 2% monthly.

Your mileage may vary, check your local laws. Your CPA should know.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

[Rick Wise] “But the question brings up, what is “good” exposure?… It all depends on the story you are telling and the style you are using.”

Rick beat me to the punch on this one… you might strive for all Caucasian faces to be at 75 IRE, BUT only if you want all faces perfectly exposed like they were getting their pictures taken down at the Sears Portrait Studio. Definitely not always the case.

A zillion years ago when I was a wanna-be actor I worked a few times on a great NBC show called “I’ll Fly Away” (no one remembers it, but it was a fantastic show). Particularly on the episodes that we DP’d by Félix Enríquez Alcalá I would notice that he definitely didn’t expose for faces, he exposed for the scene… which was far more important than an individual’s face.

An easier sample to check is the late great HBO series “Six Feet Under”, which I think is still on Netflix. Watch some of those, especially the episodes DP’d by Alan Caso. His images are just beautiful (and natural), but I doubt you’d fined a 75 IRE face there anywhere. He, too, exposed for the scene, which gave a much more beautiful and natural look. It was pretty rare for a face (or even a whole person) to be the most “correctly” exposed thing in a frame… often it was some other element entirely… a hallway in the background, a piece of furniture in the foreground, something out a window, whatever. And his scenes are gorgeous and natural-looking.

The show “Dexter” is another one which did exactly the same thing (and I know it is available on Netflix), always exposing for the scene, not a face. Alan Caso DP’d a couple of those episodes as well, but most of them were by Romeo Tirone.

Another thing I’ll note, you’re seeing all of these other exposure levels, by your own admission, on finished projects when you watch these movies and music videos with one eye on your scope. That tells you the levels the projects were finished and posted at, but you have no idea what the exposure levels were shot at, which were no doubt in many cases radically different. Due to color grading, exposure grading, and a zillion little things that manipulated the image in post, there’s no way to know what the actual in-camera exposure was. Especially with older projects (the ones shot on actual film), the actual exposure at the time of shooting could have been way below the electronic equivalent of 70-75 IRE (or somewhat above it), since film is infinitely more forgiving regarding exposure and has a much much wider latitude than electronic acquisition. I’d say analyzing the exposures on movies and videos might be a good exercise, for learning more about color/exposure grading in post… but I’m not sure it has a whole lot of value on the shooting side of things.

While it is important to a degree, I wouldn’t worry about your scopes too much. There are only two test instruments that really really count as far as whether something looks good or not… your two eyeballs.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

Well, a few thoughts…

Firstly, ask your friend who is doing the post for input. That should be step number one.

After that, a few things to think about…

If you want to paint a rectangle on the glass, but are worrying about reflections from the glass desk below it, you can do a couple of things. Firstly, mask off the rectangle you want to paint, and then paint it black, not green. Then paint it green. That would leave you with greenscreen on top, but no green visible from the underside to cause worrisome green reflections. Personally, I wouldn’t paint it at all… I’d cut a piece of green paper (readily available in a zillion colors from craft stores) and spray mount it onto the glass (again, you could use paper that is green on one side, not green on the other). That’s a lot easier and faster than painting.

Secondly, think about your shots very carefully. Unless you are blocking your shots in such a way that something (a person’s hands, etc.) violate the “screen” area, you don’t even need the green at all… you’d just composite and motion-track the inserted video onto the appropriate area of the glass.

If the case is that you might have some shots where the screen is violated and some that they are not, you might make two props…one with the green on it and one blank. You can use the blank one for all the shots where it is shown clean (with no fear of any reflections), and use the green one only for ones where it is violated by hands or whatever.

A lot of times when you see this effect done, whether it be in Minority Report or about a zillion other movies, the images on the glass are a bit transparent. If that is your goal, obviously you don’t want to use greenscreen at all, just the clear glass and composite it on later. A couple of tiny spike marks on the glass might help compositing and tracking, but might not be necessary all. If hands or anything else violates the field of view, they would have to be rotoscoped for the offending frames.

There are lots of ways to do this, but those are my first thoughts. Hope it helps.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com